Puckett v. Rufenacht, Bromagen & Hertz, Inc.
Mississippi Supreme Court
587 So. 2d 273 (1991)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Dr. Puckett and Mrs. Puckett (plaintiffs) began trading commodities using the services of Rufenacht, Bromagen & Hertz, Incorporated (RB & H) (defendant) in 1984. The Pucketts’ accounts with RB & H were nondiscretionary, which meant that the Pucketts made all trading decisions themselves and that RB & H could not make any trades without authorization from the Pucketts. Dr. Puckett executed a significant volume of trades over a 38-month period with RB & H. Ultimately, Dr. Puckett stopped trading after he lost over $2 million trading through RB & H. Dr. Puckett made no complaints that RB & H had mishandled his account. Still, the Pucketts sued RB & H to recover trading losses, arguing that RB & H should have intervened in Dr. Puckett’s trading activities after he demonstrated that he was unfit to trade by accumulating huge losses. RB & H moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Pucketts appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hawkins, J.)
Dissent (Pittman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.